Chelsea Girls

I have never been one to arrange social outings.  But a couple or three times with movies, I did.  I got together some guys and we went to see this movie I had read a review or two about.  Afterwards, I was the only guy standing up and shouting Bravo! Bravo!  Heck, maybe 30 people were in the theatre so nobody really noticed.  

fistfulkBravo! Bravo, I went for Clint Eastwood in a Fistful of Dollars just released in the USA in 1967.  I had trilled with every scene.  A breakthrough, I said, of revolutionary proportions; the Western would never be the same again and good riddance to bad rubbish.  No more John Wayne sanctimonious moral fable shit.  This was the Western stripped down to its core.  Ugly men, in an ugly, greed ridden town, killing each other quite liberally and graphically.

 Call it nihilistic.  I wouldn’t have minded back then.  But mostly it was incredibly macho in an absurdist way.  Aside from a kind of half-assed plot line about the man with no name protecting a woman, women don’t play a part in it.  Romance in the western was always damn awkward anyway, and quite unbelievable if John Wayne was doing it since the man walked like he had a pole up his asshole.  But Clint was macho in the mode of the maxed out, stay out of my face, I hate authority and the human race more generally, loner.

 People said Eastwood was a fascist, anti-flower power, and a woman hater to top it all off.  I didn’t think so really.  Maybe because I never was really pro-flower power.  When push came to shove people would hit each other.  I had learned that pretty early and was scared of the prospect.  Hell, I liked Dirty Harry too.  

My other outing of this kind was none too successful partly because we had to drive to get there in my 1950 Plymouth with the bad brakes that needed to be pumped every time I needed to stop.  This was quite hair raising.  Also the movie this time was Warhol’s Chelsea Girls.  Once again I had read a review and talked some guys into going.  Hell, I said, a movie like this comes around only once in ten years, and when you are old you can tell your kids you saw it.

As I recollect that movie was fucking 3 hours long; hell it was 6 hours long because Chelsea Girls was experimental and had two movies running right next to each other on the same screen, or maybe they were one movie.  I don’t care.  It looked like two.  Most of the time you didn’t know which one to watch or if it was worth watching either one. And most of the time, the two movies didn’t have anything at all to do with each other.  It didn’t seem to be about anything in particular.  Just a bunch of fucking weirdoes talking about something and shooting up.  I remember particularly one big hefty gal who would drop her drawers and throw her needle into her buttock like it was a dart going into a dartboard. 

Guys started getting antsy, but be damned if I would leave.  Once I had paid for a movie be damned if I was going to walk out.  So we stuck out the whole thing and now we are old enough to tell our children and our grand children about it.  Not that they would give a shit.  Most of them haven’t even seen the Godfather.

Four Muskateers

One day I am walking back to apartment building that has my office in it and Anne, the woman of home coming potential, asks would I want to go to a movie.  I am a bit perplexed.  It’s like noon for one thing.  So what exactly is she talking about?  There’s a matinee she says at a nearby eclipsetheatre showing the The Four Musketeers (1974).  I had read about the movie and knew it was directed by Richard Lester, the guy who had directed the Beatle movies.  I hesitate because a) I haven’t been to a movie in a long time and b) I hadn’t been to a movie with a woman since I didn’t know when.  But “OK” I say.

I still think the Four Musketeers is the best of all the Three Musketeer movies and certainly the best of all the Four Musketeer Movies.  It had like Michael York, and the Doctor Kildare guy in it.  And Racquel Welch. So we go to the movie, get a good laugh, talk a bit and go our separate ways. 

Hell, I don’t know what was going on if anything.  I went to her house once and I can only say her husband was none to friendly.  And they sort of started sub-bickering with each other about something.  I felt awkward pretty quickly. But I got to meet her kid who was a nice little kid.  Maybe she had wanted to see that movie and her husband hadn’t wanted to.  Or maybe she just didn’t want to go home that day?  And I do understand that while I like to go to movies by myself this isn’t the case with most people.

I went to my 40th  high school reunion.  That was sort of like a bad LSD trip.  But one thing I noticed.  A lot of the women there seemed pretty tired out.  They had all been part of that first big group of women in American history to feel the pull of career as well as family. Also women’s lib hit the whole generation really hard.  Seemed like every woman I knew—true, that was very few—had a copy of My Body, Myself stashed away somewhere.

I don’t know what it was like.  But it must have been, well, liberating, and also damn hard.  They all seemed to have been married once at least and then divorced.  Getting divorced when your mother hadn’t gotten divorced, and striking out on your own to make your own life in your own body when your mother probably hadn’t done that had to have been pretty scary stuff.  The shift from being largely a mobile uterus and a source of free labor to a person who happened to have a uterus and who deserved to get paid just as much for her work as anybody else—well, that was a pretty big switch.

That’s what Anne—of home coming potential did—or at least I heard.  Eventually she and her husband split, and she used her Masters degree, with a dissertation on Henry James, to get a job as a community college teacher. Come to think of it—getting married, divorced, and starting a life of one’s own seems to be true of every day woman I knew from that period (admittedly a small sampling).  And then, of course, the Equal Rights Amendment didn’t pass, and the light at the end of the tunnel that had prompted many of these women to go on a new path turned dark again under a general gloom.

Tank!

I didn’t see many movies back in SC.  Three maybe.  They were expensive even at the drive-in.  saharaBut I do remember the first ever movie I saw.  It was there at the Lauren’s Drive-In, right next door to the place that made hash.  It had Humphrey Bogart in it and the main character, really, was the tank, as far as I was concerned.  That’s all it was about: Bogart, the tank, and some guys from different countries (probably intended to symbolize the allied effort) in the middle of the desert trying to get back to civilization in WWII.  It was called, fittingly, Sahara, because that was where the desert was.

The movie was made in 1943, during the war, and I saw it in 1951 or so.  I guess the Lauren’s drive-in didn’t show first run movies.  But I remember it pretty well because I made an observation while viewing it.  I observed that there was not one goddamn woman in the whole fucking movie, from beginning to end, just a bunch of guys and their glorious tank out in the desert.  I remember thinking this because I remember also that I considered telling someone about what I had observed.

My father sat a little to the left of me and my mother to the right of me, as I poked my head up between them to get a look at the screen.  Had I any sort of male bonding with my father of the more archaic kind I might have leaned forward and whispered in his ear, Hey, old man.  There ain’t a goddamn woman in this whole fucking movie.  War is fucking a paradise. I mean you can drop your pants and piss where-ever the fuck you like.

 But lacking such bonding, I didn’t even think of addressing my father.  In fact, as I had the thought, I thought immediately of my mother.  I felt the urge to say to her, Hey, there aren’t any women in this movie.  Did you notice that?  I wondered if she had noticed and if she thought anything one way or other about it.  I wondered maybe if she was offended that no women had been in the move.  But I felt some sort of anger when I decided not to say anything maybe because I knew at some level she was not offended at all but was probably sitting there enjoying the idiotic spectacle that men could make of themselves.

I can’t remember the other movies, but I am sure we saw a couple more, maybe.  And of course we didn’t have a TV so I didn’t see any movies on TV when I was just a little kid.  I have met people since who seem to have spent their entire kidhood watching movies on TV.  But not me.  My favorite aunt got a TV in 1955 and the first thing I ever saw on TV was Walt Disney Presents or something like that.  Uncle Walt would talk a bit on every show and then they would show cartoons.

 Later on when I went to college my first ever college roommate had been a member of the Mickey Mouse Club by which I mean he had been on TV as a back up substitute should any of the other members of the TV show get sick or something.  He had seen Annette Funicello in the flesh.  I had really moved up by then.

Return to the Thing!

I am walking back to the former apartment building where are offices are with the woman of home mousemazecoming queen material, and she is lamenting that she has been trying the whole semester to teach her students the difference between the abstract and the concrete and she has failed, and I want to go, well, duh, you silly woman.  The students in their ignorance are telling us that it’s damn hard to tell the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

If Marx is correct, as I believe he is, our consciousness is informed through and through by abstractions; this massive thing that we call common sense (and take as reality) is socially constructed on the basis of economic and power relations.  One does not pile up examples of the concrete so that one may rise to the abstract, but the other way around, one must chip and chip away at befuddling abstractions to even begin to get a glimpse of the concrete.  History is made behind our backs and mostly we mouth unaware  what it says.

Perhaps too that’s why I read phenomenology so much.  Its motto was, “Return to the Thing.”  I was actually motivated by the desire to get to The Truth.  I didn’t want to live in darkness.  At college this desire got me into some trouble.  When for example we were asked to think about the difference between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance my desire to get at the truth was so strong, that I did extra reading beyond what we had been asked to read, trying to figure out the difference, and I got screwed up on the final essay exam because I knew more than I needed to answer the questions they asked.

I had not learned one of the basic rules of being a good student: never think about anything more than you absolutely have to and seek especially to take classes where no thinking at all is required.  Thinking may lead to the uncomfortable sensation of confusion and the slightly humiliating sense that you don’t know what you thought you did.

My pursuit of the heroic ideal of truth mucked me up especially when it came to writing papers on literature.  One evening I was sitting in the stacks trying to write one of those, surrounded by piles of books, cast off first drafts, piles of papers and coffee cups, and a colleague came by and said, “Man, what the heck are you doing?”  And when I began to describe what I was trying to understand and how befuddled I was, he said, “Man, it sounds as if you are looking for the truth.  All they want is a gracefully written essay.”

This guy was a good guy and as they say “well-rounded” and unlike myself socially poised, and while he got really good grades, he was not viewed as some sort of proto-nerd.  Maybe because he really didn’t sweat it.  I should have listened to him but I couldn’t.  I had to believe that, to wade through all the shit I was wading through, coming as I did from a working class background, I was in pursuit of no less than The Truth.  Writing gracefully was not enough to justify my misery.  He however was the son of a College Professor and knew better.

One Truth

I came out of a lecture in my sophomore year of college and said to my good buddy, poking my finger in the air, Ambiguity tolerance.  I have got to cultivate ambiguity tolerance.  We had on three days just sat through three lectures on the Russian Revolution.  And I had found them unsettling, even upsetting.  I felt a sense of frustration because all the lectures had been different.

onetruthThey were of course all about something called the Russian Revolution but one was about serfs or something like that, and one was about the bread riots or marches, and another about the various parties and by the time it was all over you didn’t know when the Russian Revolution actually took place, when it started exactly or when it ended.  So how could you even call the Russian Revolution an event if you couldn’t figure out such simple things as when it started or when it ended.

Ambiguity was a big word for me in my literature study, along with paradox, because literature was taught where I was generally from the perspective of what was called way back then, “The New Criticism.”  The New Criticism is probably more responsible for the formation of things called English Departments than anything else because it stripped literature of its relation to history and to philosophy, and set it apart as something that might be studied apart.  One looked for the meaning of the art object just in itself and not relative to when or where or why it had been produced.  The overall goal of this study was to say what a book or poem meant.

But mostly one had great difficult saying what anything meant.  One guy said this and another guy said that and nobody could prove or disprove anybody else, so the result almost invariably was ambiguity and/or paradox.  So that’s how I felt after those three lectures on the Russian Revolution.  I came out feeling that it was all ambiguous.  But this was not some book being ambiguous, but something that had actually the fuck happened, the Russian Fucking Revolution.  So if I were not to be upset by the ambiguity, which I was, I had to learn to tolerate it.

That was a big moment in my education though I didn’t at the moment see all the ramifications or consequences of it.  I saw that there wasn’t One Truth, but many, or rather there were many theories and each generated facts that were asserted as important by the theory itself.  Or to put it another way, whatever anybody said about a book or an historical “event” was the result of their original assumptions, sometimes clearly understood, sometimes relatively buried. And if you could dig those out what anybody had to say about anything was relatively predictable.

So I did learn something in college.  Maybe the most important thing.  Middle class education was not about morality or religion or values (just like they said) it was about knowledge, about how you knew something or how you didn’t.  And that was important because many of the middle class professions were based on the claim to knowing something whether they really knew it or not.

Putz

Naturally not being able to go off to war and kill people as well as my failure to have sexual intercourse (with another person) during my seven years of living in the hole lead me on occasion figleafto doubt my manhood.  This whole manhood thing is a terribly mixed up mess, and in my despair at being unable to reach, wholly introspectively, any sort of conclusion on the matter, I am ashamed to say that on one occasion I attempted a more objective assessment and measured my putz while it was erect.

This was difficult since I didn’t have a proper tape measure but only a straight edged ruler and the putz in an erect state tends to curve upwards.  Trying to make it lie flat on the straight edge rule required force and concentration and a concurrent loss of the erection itself.  Also how long it was in actuality seemed to differ considerably depending on whether one measured it from below or from above.  If from below, determining the exact point where it started or stopped was rather difficult.

Overall the exercise was singularly unrewarding especially as my putz seemed unremarkable either way.  Just an average putz in short.  But because it was unremarkable in its magnitude, I was able to torture myself by feeling, that, though average, it was shorter than it should be, were I to take the measure of it as a measure of my manhood.  I had to admit that my putz, or dangling modifier as I sometimes called it more grammatically speaking, was not a particularly awe inspiring sight.

Such was the lack of my self-esteem that I could take no solace from my knowledge that what was considered a properly masculine dick was, as they say, a social construct and had varied across the ages from culture to culture.  The ancient Greeks for example are on record as having preferred your more diminutive “package” as an indicator that the possessor thereof was less under the control of the animal passions and more a creature of reason.  

But as I said I could take no solace in this abstract knowledge especially since I was not an ancient Greek living in an ancient Greek culture but in one that seems to feel a truly manly man has a dick as big as that of a horse or thereabouts.  That I—a person of high intelligence—should attempt to measure my manhood by the measure of the “little man” suggests how primitive all of us still remain.  How primordial indeed.  Especially in this age where the package and packaging seems to count more than the thing packaged, where appearances count for much more than realities, and one can tell a book my its cover.

Women of course know about this probably more than men.  I had a lady friend over six feet tall, and according to her sworn testimony small men pursued her in droves.  When I asked why, she said, because she looked like Mount Everest and they all wanted to prove something by climbing her.  When I went to my 40th high school reunion my wife asked the women with whom I had gone to school if they had found me attractive.  Yes, they said, because I was tall.  And according to sociologists the average western woman prefers to date and wed a man about four inches taller than herself.